D&D 5E Should martial characters be mundane or supernatural?

[Maxperson]

When expertise is part of the Rogue (and Bard and Ranger) classes, then those classes are going to be better than any other at the skills they want to be good at.

The Rogue class is about being better than anyone else at the skills she chooses to be better than anyone else at, that is really the point of the class IMO.

Except that it's literally not. This is from the Skill and Precision portion of the 5e Rogue where it talks about the skills they master.

"Many rogues focus on stealth and deception, while others refine the skills that help them in a dungeon environment, such as climbing, finding and disarming traps, and opening locks."

It talks about the traditional rogue skills with not even a hint of being better at religion that clerics or better than wizards at arcana. When the lore and mechanics don't match, it's a problem. They've finally corrected their mistake with the latest Playtest UA.

Edit: They didn't actually correct this mistake, but it's always harder to take something away, so I get leaving it the way that it was.

You and I are just going to have to disagree on this, and the feats are there for a reason. The whole reason the feat exists is to allow Wizards (and others) to get expertise. A Wizard needs to invest in a feat to get expertise and a Rogue needs to invest in a feat (or a subclass) to cast spells.

Yep. It was a problem that 1) rogues could use their expertise on non-rogue skills, or 2) that wizards didn't get expertise in arcana. And again, they've finally corrected the problem.

I would not have a problem with a Wizard subclass that gave Arcana expertise, but it should not be a class feature IMO.

While you feel the majority agree with you, but it seems unlikely that expertise would have shown up in the latest(and probably final with regard to the wizard class) UA if a majority hadn't been asking for it.

While I am at it a Knowledge Cleric and a Rune Knight Fighter with Arcana proficiency will also beat a Wizard.

Not anymore.

If you try to make your 3E Rogue better than a Wizard at Alchemy and Scrying she is not going to be viable. You did not have that "choice" like you do in 5E.

Limitations are required for a game to be fun. That's why we have rules for RPGs. That choice wasn't supposed to be there in 3e and that was a good thing.

 

[ECMO3]

Limitations are required for a game to be fun. That's why we have rules for RPGs. That choice wasn't supposed to be there in 3e and that was a good thing.

I would disagree with this generally, limiting choices to relatively narrow specialty areas is not good for the game IMO and while you bring up some good points about ONE limiting/changing these things, I think it will ultimately be to the detriment of that edition if it is not changed before it is finalized.

Further if the Wizard has Arcana expertise, that is something I missed. But the counter discussion to that in the course of this thread is that the Wiard is generally more powerful in ONE than it currently is and the gap we are discussing on this thread is wider.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I don't think I am in the minority and I think this is one reason 5E is so popular.

You are certainly with the majority in holding that opinion about your opinions.

 

[Maxperson]

I would disagree with this generally, limiting choices to relatively narrow specialty areas is not good for the game IMO and while you bring up some good points about ONE limiting/changing these things, I think it will ultimately be to the detriment of that edition if it is not changed before it is finalized.

I disagree with the notion that the rogue engaging traditional rogue skills is a "relatively narrow specialty." The various kinds of rogues cover a broad variety.

Further if the Wizard has Arcana expertise, that is something I missed. But the counter discussion to that in the course of this thread is that the Wiard is generally more powerful in ONE than it currently is and the gap we are discussing on this thread is wider.

At level 2 they get the Scholar ability.

"While studying magic, you also specialized in an academic field of study. Choose one of the following skills in which you have proficiency: Arcana, History, Nature, or Religion. You have Expertise in the chosen skill."

I wouldn't have put nature or religion on that list. History I can see. Arcana for sure. Nature should be the purview of druids and rangers to be the best if they want, and religion for clerics, druids and paladins.

 

[Stalker0]

A wizard shouldn't have to invest in a feat in order to be better at the wizard skill than a rogue.

Most Wizards are better at arcana though. If we are talking your typical 5-10th era play (that is the bulk of most people's playing time). You have an 18th int wizard with a +7 in arcana. A rogue needs to have 14+ int to beat that, or a 16 int once the wizard caps off at 20 at 8th level.

Now can a rogue be better, sure if they want to invest hugely in a stat that doesn't otherwise benefit them. Don't really see the problem, in the vast majority of games, the wizard is still going to be the greatest arcana expert.

 

[Blue]

This is in the D&D forum. D&D is part of the high fantasy or heroic fantasy genre and follows it's tropes. Characters are the heroes of the story, and therefore the heroes of those tropes. So unless intentionally playing an Everyman trope, PCs are or become more than mundane.

Therefore, D&D PCs are supernatural unless intentionally played otherwise by the player.

 

[Micah Sweet]

This is in the D&D forum. D&D is part of the high fantasy or heroic fantasy genre and follows it's tropes. Characters are the heroes of the story, and therefore the heroes of those tropes. So unless intentionally playing an Everyman trope, PCs are or become more than mundane.

Therefore, D&D PCs are supernatural unless intentionally played otherwise by the player.

High or heroic fantasy is a way to play D&D, not the way, and not the way it was originally intended to be played. Your opinion of how things should be is no better than mine on the same subject.

 

[Tony Vargas]

D&D is part of the high fantasy or heroic fantasy genre and follows it's tropes.

D&D is very much part of it's own self-referent genre that follows the genre and tropes generated by it's own history and mechanics.
Thus, D&D perfectly models itself, and is immune from all criticism.

Characters are the heroes of the story, and therefore the heroes of those tropes.

By all rights, the characters in a TTRPGs should be heroes in their own stories. But D&D has not generally been structured that way. It's ultimately up to the DM, of course, but the idea that there are many adventurers out there, much like the PCs, who are driving that goldrush economy and will jump their claim if they rest too often &c, and that there are also much higher level NPCs out there ready to quash untoward PC schemes to systematically wreck the world economy or whatever... not really conducive to the protagonist PC.

PCs are or become more than mundane.
Therefore, D&D PCs are supernatural unless intentionally played otherwise by the player.

I swear, there's a vast excluded middle between the workaday humdrum world of the mundane, and the effing supernatural.

 

[Blue]

High or heroic fantasy is a way to play D&D, not the way, and not the way it was originally intended to be played. Your opinion of how things should be is no better than mine on the same subject.

I haven't read any of the replies yet, so I have no idea what your statements are. That said, the single one you made in reply to me doesn't hold up. "Not the way it was originally intended to be played" has no bearing on how it is played today. Want to look at D&D 4e and say that because Chainmail wasn't "intended to be played as heroic/high fantasy" that D&D 4e has player characters as mundane? That's pretty obviously not true, so original intent can be removed as a discussion factor for how the game is currently played.

It's interesting that you feel that is not "the way to play D&D". Mechanically PCs can do things a mundane person can't. Jumping down 40 feet and continuing to fight. Getting hit perfectly by a club wielded by a giant and still fighting. Fighting at full strength even when badly wounded. I don't know any players that penalize themselves above what the rules say in order to play as mundanes in D&D - they play to the heroic tropes.

This isn't opinion as you dismissed it, this is observation of both what the PCs can do as defined by the physics of the rules - above the mundane - and how people play them - at the level the rules allow them to.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Magic is science? We are talking Mage: the Ascension, again.

j/k that would be Science is Magick

We all know friendship is magic!

I wouldn't have put nature or religion on that list. History I can see. Arcana for sure. Nature should be the purview of druids and rangers to be the best if they want, and religion for clerics, druids and paladins.

5e just doesn’t do that. It’s fundamentally not within the design ethos of 5e to limit concept in that particular way.

Now, IMO, each class should have “expertise in thier area without spending any skill trainings, but barring that, might as well just let each class optionally specialize.

Most Wizards are better at arcana though. If we are talking your typical 5-10th era play (that is the bulk of most people's playing time). You have an 18th int wizard with a +7 in arcana. A rogue needs to have 14+ int to beat that, or a 16 int once the wizard caps off at 20 at 8th level.

Now can a rogue be better, sure if they want to invest hugely in a stat that doesn't otherwise benefit them. Don't really see the problem, in the vast majority of games, the wizard is still going to be the greatest arcana expert.

Arcane Trickster probably wants a good Int, but otherwise yeah. It’s mostly hypothetical.

Still. The Bard should be the greatest expert of all knowledge, able to surprise the priest, the mage, and the Druid, with the knowledge they otherwise are undisputed master of.

But the 5e bard sucks, so it’ll never happen.